Imagine
yourself encountering a case whose sole contention is that it is wrong to
commit genocides, on the resolution that “This house would support human
rights.”Your devilishly clever
opponents (the government) seem within the resolution so a topicality/link argument
is not going to work. What should you do?Should you throw your hands in the air, shout a profane exclamation of
disgust, and leave the room?While this
is indeed tempting, there is another option. You can suggest that the advocacy
of the government is a truism that does not present fair ground for a
debate.

So,
what exactly is a “truism”?Is this
different than a “tautology”?How could
I run such an argument?In this essay,
we’ll examine the difference between and how to argue tautologies and truisms.

THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRUISM AND A TAUTOLOGY

What
is a tautology?Well, the Oxford
English Dictionary defines tautology as “A compound proposition which is
unconditionally true for all the truth-possibilities of its elementary
propositions and by virtue of its logical form.”For those of you who haven’t taken a course in modal logic
lately, a tautology is an argument that is true by how the arguer defined
it. For example, if the resolution
is “This House would uphold human rights,” and the government sets a criterion
whereby the team that best upholds human rights wins the debate, they have
committed a tautology.

A
truism is distinct from a tautology in that it is not true by definition.Instead, a truism is an argument that is
considered to be true by the vast majority of people; it is an argument that
really is not disputable.For
example, the argument that “genocide is bad” is a truism; virtually no one is
going to argue that a genocide is good. Clearly, the truism argument is more
tricky than a tautology in that it is rooted in what people believe and not
pure logic, as a tautology argument is rooted.This said, let us explore how we might employ these arguments in a
debate.

ARGUING
TAUTOLOGIES

How
do you argue a tautology?You state that
the case is a tautology, explain how it is a tautology, and why this means the
case should be rejected. For example, on the topic “This House would uphold
human rights,” you might argue:

“The
government case is a tautology. The government has said that the winner of the
debate is whoever best upholds human rights. But by just supporting the topic,
they will have won the debate. You cannot win a debate by defining yourself the
winner. That is a tautology and it is a fallacy and it makes it impossible for
the opposition to win the debate. The government case should be dismissed.”

Follow
up your tautology argument with your own definitions and explanations of why
these definitions provide a fairer ground for debate.

Note
that many judges are skeptical of arguments claiming that a case is a
tautology. These judges will see reasons in the government case beyond the
definitions. For example, they’ll say to themselves “yes, that isn’t a very
strong case but the opposition can just show that human rights should not be
upheld.” Further, these judges will say “the government gave some reasons for
why human rights are good in their case, meaning it was not entirely dependent
on the tautology for proof.” So, you should almost always debate the case
itself in addition to making the tautology argument.

As a
government trying to respond to a tautology, try to point out how your case is
not true simply because of how you defined the topic.Show the reasons you gave that do not depend on your definitions
of the topic. For example, “We showed human rights are important to saving
lives, to prevent torture, and to respect international law. None of these
reasons are arguments dependent on our definition of the topic.” Also, try
placing a very high standard of proof on the opposition for what they must
argue to prove your case is a tautology. For example, “The opposition must show
that we have given no reason whatsoever beyond definitions. They don’t so their
tautology claim falls.”Further, take
action to avoid getting into this kind of a situation. In preparation time, ask
yourself if you’re needlessly making your definitions too specific in such a
way that could make it so your case true by definition. Always, give reasons
for your case that do not depend on your definition of the resolution.

ARGUING
TRUISMS

How
do you argue a truism? Pretty much the same way as a tautology. You state that
the case is a truism, explain how it is a truism, and why this means the case
should be rejected. For example, to show that “genocide is bad” is a truism,
you would argue:

“Saying
that genocide is bad is a truism. No one disagrees with this. The government
case makes it virtually impossible to argue against their case. You should
dismiss the government case as being a truism unworthy of debate.”

Follow
up your truism argument with your own definitions and explanations of why these
definitions provide a fairer ground for debate.

Be
wary of making a “truism” argument.Much of the community does not think that a truism means a government
should lose.Usually, if a government
runs a fairly common sense case, you can press for details about implementation
so you can make arguments about the way in which they address or solve the
problem they cite or make topicality arguments based on how their advocacy
falls within the words of the resolution.

Responding
to a truism is a much easier task.Point to specific people who argue for the ground you have set for the
opposition.Accuse the opposition of
failing to debate the merits of the case or even tell them to “Stop whining!”
Argue that it is the opposition’s job to find and defend their ground
creatively. Further, assuming the opposition made arguments against your case,
point out they made arguments thus showing that it is possible to argue against
the case.